Was Paul a "tentmaker"?

by CyrusThePersian 48 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  mP

  Adam

  One of the great ironies of history is that the Jews held captive in Babylon were amongst the FIRST beneficiaries of a religious system that was the World's first to prohibit slavery: the Zoroasterians (under their God, Ahuru Mazda) held this as central to their beliefs, and since it was accepted as the official State religion of the Persian Empire under Cyrus the Great, who released the Jews from captivity and allowed them to return to Judea (only to ironically pick up the practice of slavery AFTER the Greeks defeated the Persians, some 200 yrs later; they "returned to their own vomit" of practicing slavery once they got a chance). Heck, the OT even records the event in Daniel, etc.

  mP:

  The jews felt they were superior because their holy book told them so. They felt that other peoples were not the brothers, but labour to be taken. Just look at the book of Joshua it tells them this. Their entire religion is based on separatism and racism. Its particularly interesting that nobody mentions more than half of the jews in Babylon did not return Judea. I think Ezra gives us the supposed exact numbers. Sounds to me like many jews didnt want to return tot he old despot ways of their kings and preferred the relative better life under the Persians.
• 

  Band on the Run

  The point about Acts not being historical compared to Paul's genuine letters is an excellent point. I should know better. This is why I never purused Bible studies or anything Judaeo/Christian beyond the middle level. My grades were too important. It proves once again that being raised in a religious tradition where everything is blended in culture, from theology to films and tv, messes up accuracy. I respect any Witness who later became a NT scholar b/c I could never do it.

  There is imaginary Jesus in my brain and imaginary Paul, all taught when I could barely walk or talk, that will always be my first view of the material. I don't even have a Witness image to keep straight. TV and epic Cecil B. DeMille films ruined the gospels and epistles for me. My neighborhood was very Roman Catholic so I picked up thoughts from the Catholic kids I played with at a very early age.

  My strong academic thought would be that if the tentmaking is only mentioned in Acts, Paul never did it. I would have sworn it was in his letters. Doesn't he brag about it? He had to be insecure to keep arguing so much. I wonder how many Christians believed Paul's version once the James/Peter delegations showed up. The Gnostics had to visit, too. So many times I have sworn that something is NOT in the Bible only to be told politely to look it up at home. I go straight to my Bible. It never ceases to amaze me how I missed very important things in the Bible.
• 

  mP

  BotR

  Christians believed Paul's version once the James/Peter delegations showed up.

  MP:

  Well from the letters we have, James and Peter agreed not to preach to gentiles. If you believe that then theres a real chance this side of the faction never travelled to the spots that Paul did. Then again tehres no proof that James or Peter ever existed. 1P & 2P are not written by the same author, the vocabulary is completely different. Most scholars have noted this and its pretty obvious these are frauds.

  Hlf the books in the NT are pseudographies, most are not written by whom you think they are. Mat was not written by the apostle matthew. The text enver says so. Only half of Pauls letters are written by the same author. 1Johmn/2/3 rev and the gospel are not written by the same person. Again studiying the voc is but a start and shows them to be from different people.
• 

  talesin

  Okay, I've been reading this thread with great interest, but wanted to inject a bit of humour....

  could it be that "Paul" was a tentmaker, but in reality it was just 'morning wood'? LMAO~!

  tal
• 

  CyrusThePersian

  Thanks for all the replies! I really didn't think this thread would be all that interesting--given that it's such a minor point.

  I would like to point out that the book of Acts certainly shouldn't be looked at as historical by any stretch of the imagination. It makes me wonder why the writer of Acts posited that Paul was a skenepoios whichever it means. The writer was definitely a big fan of Paul, but he did mangle Paul's history a bit. (more on that later).

  One fact remains however. The writer of Acts seems to assume that his audience knows what he means when he writes that Paul, Priscilla and Aquila are skenepoioi (plural) since he offers no qualifiers or explanations of what he means by this Greek term.

  The next thing I think I'll talk about is Paul's argument with Peter that Paul talks about in Galations.
• 

  adamah

  Adamah said-

  Humanity doesn't let the Bible hold us back from creating documents like the US Constitution, enacting laws that prohibit slavery (Emancipation Proclamation), etc.

  mP said:

  You might want to present your facts in a more accurate way. The US was late in abolishing slavery. England basically forced the world nearly 50 years ago when it used its navy to stop the trade . Be fair the US consitution is nothing special.

  WOW! Did i SAY the US Constitution was "the World's first", or something special"? No. Citing it as an example doesn't imply either, so once again, you're jumping to unwarranted conclusions to create more 'straw man' arguments by putting words into the mouths of others.

  But aside from the debating foul of misrepresenting the words of others, you might want to look up the definition of quibbling, since you're doing it by arguing over an extremely minor point that is off-topic (for a subject that is itself an extremely trivial detail, as Cyrus The Persian even recognizes: the occupation claimed for someone in the Bible is a trivial matter).

  The topic wasn't a comprehensive discussion of the history of abolition of slavery in the entire World (!), but the point arose when Vidqun claimed that Christianity was no better morally on the slavery issue than the other religions (which is not true: Zoroasterian was the FIRST to abolish it, when Christianity STILL hasn't denounced the practice). All of that was in response to you dragging slavery into a discussion of Paul's occupation! So quibble on, if you insist!

  Adam
• 

  TD

  Paul's claim of being a tentmaker by trade and a Pharisee by education are not terribly compatible together. It was not an acceptable trade for a Pharisee.

  If he did learn that trade it would have been sometime after he renounced Phariseeism. (Assuming both claims are correct.)
• 

  keyser soze

  could it be that "Paul" was a tentmaker, but in reality it was just 'morning wood'?

  Damn you, Talesin, you stole my thunder. I was just about to inject a comment about 'pitching a tent'.
• 

  mP

  Adam

  WOW! Did i SAY the US Constitution was "the World's first", or something special"? No. Citing it as an example doesn't imply either, so once again, you're jumping to unwarranted conclusions to create more 'straw man' arguments by putting words into the mouths of others.

  mP:
  Then why mention the US Const at all ?
• 

  mP

  Adam

  But aside from the debating foul of misrepresenting the words of others, you might want to look up the definition of quibbling, since you're doing it by arguing over an extremely minor point that is off-topic (for a subject that is itself an extremely trivial detail, as Cyrus The Persian even recognizes: the occupation claimed for someone in the Bible is a trivial matter).

  mP:
  Its not quibbling its being accurate and honest to words, someting xians have a real problem with. Lets not forget you introduced the US Const into the discussion, not me.